Woods v. Crumlish

E.D. Pennsylvania

Woods v. Crumlish

260 F. Supp. 473, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7326

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 17, 1966

DocketCiv. A. No. 41346

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 F. Supp. 473 (Woods v. Crumlish) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woods v. Crumlish, 260 F. Supp. 473, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7326 (E.D. Pa. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HIGGINBOTHAM, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Herbert L. Woods, requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915 (1948).¹ His complaint is brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (1871),² seeking damages from defendants James C. Crumlish, then District Attorney of the City of Philadelphia; Raymond Malone, then Magistrate of the City of Philadelphia, sitting at Girard and Montgomery Avenues, and John Doe, then Assistant District Attorney of the City of Philadelphia, on duty at Girard and Montgomery Avenues.

The Court of Appeals of this Circuit, sitting en banc, reversing its previous holding in Picking v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 151 F.2d 240, 250-251 (3rd Cir., 1945), recently held that “ * * * the traditional concept of judicial immunity remained undisturbed by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act * * * ” Bauers v. Heisel, No. 15277, 361 F.2d 581, 588 (3rd Cir., May 19, 1966), en banc, and that immunity from suit attaches to prosecutors as well as to judges because of the judicial nature of the office, id. at 589-591. Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find no allegation of “ * * * acts which [were] done clearly outside the jurisdiction of the office.” Bauers, supra, at 591. Thus since plaintiff’s claim does not constitute a meritorious cause of action,³ his petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby denied.⁴

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HIGGINBOTHAM, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Herbert L. Woods, requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915 (1948).¹ His complaint is brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (1871),² seeking damages from defendants James C. Crumlish, then District Attorney of the City of Philadelphia; Raymond Malone, then Magistrate of the City of Philadelphia, sitting at Girard and Montgomery Avenues, and John Doe, then Assistant District Attorney of the City of Philadelphia, on duty at Girard and Montgomery Avenues.

The Court of Appeals of this Circuit, sitting en banc, reversing its previous holding in Picking v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 151 F.2d 240, 250-251 (3rd Cir., 1945), recently held that “ * * * the traditional concept of judicial immunity remained undisturbed by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act * * * ” Bauers v. Heisel, No. 15277, 361 F.2d 581, 588 (3rd Cir., May 19, 1966), en banc, and that immunity from suit attaches to prosecutors as well as to judges because of the judicial nature of the office, id. at 589-591. Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find no allegation of “ * * * acts which [were] done clearly outside the jurisdiction of the office.” Bauers, supra, at 591. Thus since plaintiff’s claim does not constitute a meritorious cause of action,³ his petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby denied.⁴

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 F. Supp. 473, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-crumlish-paed-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack